Posted on 09/11/2007 9:52:52 AM PDT by JZelle
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
(Excerpt) Read more at lneilsmith.org ...
I believe that it is a bad idea and perfectly Constitutional. And I would support your right to have it until such time as the Constitution is amended to prohibit it.
I can also assure you that any such amendment will have to be carefully crafted to ensure that the personal right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, and community is infringed only to the slightest degree.
Probably the best Ben Franklin quote ever.
Incredible.
Same here. That woman is responsible for the sale of an awful lot of firearms. Hardly a day passes that I don't look forward to outliving that b...b...witch.
I do not own a gun and don’t plan on ever owning one. That, however, is my choice, and not something that is dictated to me. If the government can take away my right to own and use a gun they can take away any of my rights, the right to vote, free speech, practice my religion, peacefully assemble, etc. If one can go all can go.
How are you going to stop them? With another law (or even an existing one)? I know, how about you give you your rights. That will do the trick.
It’s not me you have to convince. I think you did a pretty good job of delineating.
Read the whole thread and you’ll see its fruitcakes like the author of the article and William Tell and Tpaine that you have to convince.
What you are saying is EXACTLY where I have BEEN trying to get too all along.
I think your nuts.
Or just armed merchantmen that didn't particularily want to be taken as a prize by a privateer..
Please allow me to rephrase that so as not to express gratitude to you anatomy.
I think you’re nuts.
Are you a hunter? If so you object to my putting long range sniper rifles in the grey area because that would put hunting rifles in a grey area? Let me say this then...Long range sniper rifles are in my opinion a grey area because 1) they have progressed to the point in this day and age where they greatly surpass any high powered hunting rifle(or maybe I should say some of them have. Some of the military long range sniper rifles are in fact american hunting rifles without the fancy woodgrain stocks.) 2) Long range sniper rifles(AKA high powered hunting rifles) are not all that important to the average citizen’s self defense requirements. The most useful weapons to the average citizen for self defense would be short barreled shotguns and high capacity pistols such as the glock. Interestingly, the short barreled shotgun was one of the first of the firearms taken away from us citizens! What the * is that all about? Gun control is totally bass ackwards from the getgo.
If you are, on the otherhand, objecting to my “long range sniper rifle” comment because you think they are absurdly deadly weapons in the hands of average citizens, then you are an absolute idiot. As I stated before, long range sniper rifles are in many cases nothing more than a plain khaki colored american high powered hunting rifle without the fancy shiny woodgrain stocks. Look up the ballistics on a .338-.378 weatherby magnum and then get back to me.
Also, you should know that a 21 year old kid can buy one of those 338-378 weatherby magnums WITHOUT a gun permit! I mean TODAY, not way back in the day when I was a kid.
I think that is a shame.
I don't know where you live, but anybody in Kalifornia who claims to be pro-Second Amendment and who doesn't own arms, has to be missing a key motivational ingredient. And that is the deep-burning indignation that comes from the harassing infringements that can only be fully appreciated by purchasing and owning firearms.
If you own no firearms, then how do you know how burdensome and trivially-effective is the requirement to have a Handgun Safety Certificate. How can one appreciate the irony that the prior Basic Handgun Safety Certificate, which was purchased with the expectation that it was good for life, is now totally worthless.
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the trivially-effective questions that require one to swear, under penalty of perjury, that one is not a felon, or any of several other barred groups?
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the notion that, regardless of the number of arms already owned, one must wait ten days to take delivery of a firearm, requiring more costly paperwork on the part of the dealer, and added expense for the buyer, including a second trip to pick up the firearm?
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the challenge faced by purchasers of rifles to know, understand, and comply with the several different "assault weapons" laws? Attaching a three-ounce plastic pistol grip to some rifles is perfectly legal. Attaching one to other rifles is a felony.
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the limitations on the purchase of accessory items, such as normal capacity magazines, that are perfectly legal to own in about 47 states, but not Kalifornia? Accidently borrowing such an item from a friend could make you and the friend guilty of a crime.
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the burden of having to select a handgun from a limited list of state-approved "not unsafe" handguns? Some such handguns have been modified from the designers initial vision to have manually operated "safeties" that reduce the reliability of the firearm and which encourage the user to plan on fumbling with a small, useless mechanism during a time of high stress.
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the wasted resources inherent in requiring manufacturers and/or dealers to supply a lock with every firearm? Many firearms owners in Kalifornia have bags of such useless locks.
If you own no firearms, how can you appreciate the requirements for carrying a "concealable firearm" only when one is imminently going to use such a firearm, such as going to a firing range, and then only locked, unloaded, with the ammunition locked in a separate container?
Even for those outside Kalifornia, how can one appreciate the requirements such as those in Nevada, that a handgun to be carried concealed must be of a make and model listed on one's permit?
In Texas, where can one carry a concealed weapon without committing a crime, given that only certain prohibiting signs are recognized by law?
In New Mexico, is it still a crime to carry concealed in a convenience store that happens to sell both gas and alcoholic beverages?
In Vermont is it legal to .... Nevermind. It's legal there.
Wherever you live, there is much to know about firearm ownership that might not be very noticeable to those who have decided not to arm themselves. There are certainly some people who should not arm themselves. But they are very much a minority, I think.
Perhaps it’s better to make your argument this way, rather than rallying for the right to own a nuke. That kind of ridiculous argument only hurts the rest of a legitimate point.
You think that the Constitution just automatically changes meaning over time to agree with what you think is best? Why write it down? We can just ask you whenever we need to know how new situations should be handled. Or, if not you, we can ask the judiciary. Or we can ask whichever party happens to control Congress at the time.
The Founders gave us a means to change the Constitution. It's been used several times to make dramatic changes to what was thought by our Founders to be the best way to constrain what is supposed to be a limited government.
If an amendment to the Constitution specified that everybody who is at least four-years-old should have the right to vote, would that be a good idea? Would it be Constitutional? Would you expect Congress just to legislate in violation of that amendment? Would you expect the courts to permit violation of that amendment?
This actually happened in 1861. The results were unfortunate.
To use the language of our Founders, our Creator would not wish me to be without nuclear weapons if my enemies have them.
Please read my post #74. The meaning of the Constitution doesn't change just because we think it ought to.
Furthermore, EVERY significant weapon invention has been praised and feared due to the significant advantages that accrued to its users.
How do you think those who first faced the longbow in combat felt about having to face such a fearsome weapon?
How did those who first faced gun powder feel about it?
The machine gun in World War II was thought to be a decisively effective weapon, until the invention of the battle tank.
There is nothing magical about nuclear weapons. The United States used such weapons to good effect in World War II.
I already stated that I think it is a bad idea for just anybody to have a nuke. I also stated that the Constitution must be amended to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There was no intention by our Founders to limit the arms of the people in any way.
I object to putting ANYTHING in a gray area. The Founders intended no limitations. If you want some limitations, then you will gain my support ONLY if there are no gray areas. I'm entirely uninterested in modifying the Supreme Law of the Land in any manner which permits the present infringements to continue.
Now tell me which hunting rifles shall the people have a right to keep and bear and which sniper rifles the people shall not have the right to keep and bear. If you leave it to me, all rifles will be protected. If you leave it to a liberal legislature, all rifles will be outlawed.
What are you proposing relative to the keeping and bearing of rifles? I suggest that you keep in mind that the so-called "assault weapons" in Kalifornia are banned as hunting rifles for larger game in most jurisdictions because the cartridges are insufficiently powerful to effect a clean kill.
"How are you going to stop them? With another law (or even an existing one)"
What? THere is a law that covers that. It's the instant background check that identifies felons, crazies and other prohibited persons to FFLs. Otherwise myself and friends will watch our own business. So the legitimate market is closed to those that have forfieted their rights, or lost them as a tragic consequence of mental illness. Those folks will have to deal with those characters that are not my friends, the prohibited persons in the felon and enemies of the US catagory.
The muslims are already here.
what would a muslim do with a suitcase nuke? blow himself up and many americans with him.
what would you do with a suitcase nuke? blow up DC? It is not a defensive weapon. If you allow it, only terrorists will take it and that is not in the best interests of our country.
Do you then claim that the Second Amendment was unclear and ambiguous to our Founders? If not, what did it mean? Does it mean something different now? If so, in what year did it change?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.